Why would Canada's contribution be easy to forget? Its was hardly insignificant, esp considering the small population of Canada.

Because, as Chief said, they are overshadowed by the British and Americans.

Block Quote

Canada's contribution to World War 2 is often overshadowed by the larger nations such as America and Great Britain, but there is no doubt that Canada more than pulled thier wieght throughout the war.

That's pretty much what Chief actually said, besides the "more than pulled her weight" part, which, frankly, isn't true when compared to the other allies. You are just nickpicking here.

Romania contributed more soldiers to the allied cause (after August 23, 1944) than Canada, and nobody remembers their sacrifices. Everybody knows about the Canucks kicking the Germans out of the Netherlands. Don't act so offended, please.

Because, as Chief said, they are overshadowed by the British and Americans.

That's pretty much what Chief actually said, besides the "more than pulled her weight" part, which, frankly, isn't true when compared to the other allies. You are just nickpicking here.

Romania contributed more soldiers to the allied cause (after August 23, 1944) than Canada, and nobody remembers their sacrifices. Everybody knows about the Canucks kicking the Germans out of the Netherlands. Don't act so offended, please.

Care to offer and example how Canada is not pulling more than its weight? A nation of 6 million with 1 million active service members, in the war from the start, fought in Pacific, throughout Italy and Normandy, 3rd largest navy...etc etc..

that is literally the definition of more than pulling your weight.

Romania? You mean the country that changed sides when the war turned against the Axis??

Ya that tends to not bode well for you when remembering the "allied" contribution.

Care to offer and example how Canada is not pulling more than its weight? A nation of 6 million with 1 million active service members, in the war from the start, fought in Pacific, throughout Italy and Normandy, 3rd largest navy...etc etc..

Like I said... compared to the other allies.

Wikipedia says prewar population of 11 million Canadians.

Block Quote

Romania? You mean the country that changed sides when the war turned against the Axis??

Ya that tends to not bode well for you when remembering the "allied" contribution.

Change that to "when the Red army invaded the country and the fascist government was overthrown by a royalist coup". They were already losing for 2 years before that.

538,536 Romanian soldiers in allied frontline service, of which 169,822 were lost fighting the Germans and Hungarians(source: Mark Axworthy). And that in less than a year!

Change that to "when the Red army invaded the country and the fascist government was overthrown by a royalist coup". They were already losing for 2 years before that.

538,536 Romanian soldiers in allied frontline service, of which 169,822 were lost fighting the Germans and Hungarians(source: Mark Axworthy). And that in less than a year!

^this from a guy from a country that we sacrificed our guys to liberate. Further , choose a better example than an axis nation that participated and instigated , within its own borders some of the heinous things against segments of their civilian population .

We were in it from the beginning to the end. Our record speaks for itself.

The cheiftens "dry humour" , didn't in this case translate to print and given the rep of some of the more "outspoken" nationalities of the this forum suggests that the cheiften should refrain from "dry humour" at least in print.

^this from a guy from a country that we sacrificed our guys to liberate.

Yeah yeah, I already said thank you. But apparently I am not allowed to say it might not be that much offensive to say that Canada is easily overlooked, or even suggest there were other countries that suffered, contributed and were overlooked too, because you liberated us?

Block Quote

Further , choose a better example than an axis nation that participated and instigated , within its own borders some of the heinous things against segments of their civilian population .

So this suddenly isn't about the contribution of fighting power anymore? (Let's just overlook the fact that any Jewish refugees were rejected entry from Canada too even though it was clear they werent gonna survive in occupied Europe.) Right. What about Bulgaria then? A country that refused to deport the majority of its Jewish population, refused to send any soldiers to the Russian front before switching sides and contributed their soldiers to the allied cause when the Red Army arrived. Totally overlooked nowadays.

What I'm saying is, you're not the only ones who "pulled their wheight" and fought the Axis, and you certainly aren't the most overlooked.

Why would Canada's contribution be easy to forget? Its was hardly insignificant, esp considering the small population of Canada.

I am in full agreement that the contribution was significant, but I'm afraid to say that many in the US have a somewhat underappreciating position as regards other nations. Saying that the extent of the Canadian involvement is often overlooked by those outside of Canada, which it is, in no way diminishes the value of that involvement. How many Americans (or even Brits) have even heard of Vimy Ridge, let alone can speak with any knowledge of it? Does acknowledging that ignorance in any way detract from the event?

I understand your point top paragraph (I don't want to comment on it in open forum as it is outside the scope of same. Pm and we can blab privately if you would like)

The point is that the cheiften made his comment about Canada specifically not a blanket statement and Canada as an example.

Cheiften, respectfully, you are American I appreciate your qualify of those in America "don't know"...I would think that you would want to shy away from a stereotype. Those outside of Canada, such as Great Britain, whom we joined within several weeks of their declaration of war, the countries that we fought in and lastly the people we fought against in the last World War , not to mention the First World War( we were the Allied shock troops in Europe) are quiet aware of our contributions and the extent of it.

You may be showing a west coast bias ie pacific theater ( unitentional) or making assumptions. In my travels in Europe I have been thanked by Frenchman for Canada's sacrifice (saw my flag on my back pack) . Brought to war Graves of Canadians in Italy , spontaneously by locals , and told of our army when in England.

No my friend this forgetfulness or overlooking of is an American thing, not a many nation thing.

A lot of countries participated in WW2 and many are overshadowed by the big name forces like US, UK, Germany, USSR, and Japan.

I mean look at Brazil, they also had troops in Italy. And while supporting the British and American forces, they captured over 20,500 Axis prisoners. The Brazilian Navy was helping patrol and escort ships in the Atlantic. They have recorded 66 engagements with Axis submarines with 11 confirmed submarine kills.

You also hear very little about Japan's number one enemy at the start of the war, China. How Germany's early tank designs were tested during Spain's Civil War. How Germany supplied tanks and equipment to Turkey in hopes they would break their neutrality. That Finland, being from the previous Russian Empire, had turned to Germany for help for the Winter War since Britain became an ally to the Soviet Union.

WW2 had a lot going on militarily, politically, etc which is overlooked. Some Axis powers fought against putting their Jewish populations in camps. The US put Japanese and Japanese-Americans in camps. American fighter pilots joined the Chinese before the US went to war. Aside from the various African-American units that fought distinguishly, there was also a Japanese-American unit that fought in Europe. Again, just to emphasize the point that there is a lot of history that gets forgotten.

Chieftain, I don't want to distract from a very interesting article, but your opening sentence to this great piece had me thinking, "Who the [expletive deleted] is this clown?". In particular, 'but the Canadians did actually pull their weight in WW2' reads like a back-handed compliment. I know you meant well and were trying to point out that in popular culture, many people might not fully realize the significant contributions Canada made during both Great Wars. Oftentimes, the Commonwealth allies and their contributions were lumped in with British operations and simply labeled 'British'. In movies and television, this is often the case, much to the chagrin of Commonwealth citizens who know better. Honestly, were you to be a proud Canadian and read that sentence, I'd be surprised if you weren't just a little miffed, too.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to the second part of this series. Don't forget to mention the mouse-holing tactics the Canadians employed to avoid the street fighting. Very interesting stuff there.

I am in full agreement that the contribution was significant, but I'm afraid to say that many in the US have a somewhat underappreciating position as regards other nations. Saying that the extent of the Canadian involvement is often overlooked by those outside of Canada, which it is, in no way diminishes the value of that involvement. How many Americans (or even Brits) have even heard of Vimy Ridge, let alone can speak with any knowledge of it? Does acknowledging that ignorance in any way detract from the event?

So now I must be truly Canadian and apologize, eh? Here's The Chieftain highlighting Canada's contribution and how do we reward him? By jumping all over a comment intended to be darkly humourous (N.B. the Canadian spelling). I'm sorry, Sir! We've become distracted from your excellent question.

Alright, so conventional theory is that we don't attack strong points or engage in attritional warfare; instead we manoueuvre (again, N.B.) around them and make them irrelevant by bypassing them. Except that wasn't an practical option in Italy and was perilous even when tried.

So you're left to slog it out then, just as they did. Well, given that my combat experience is limited to WoT, I will again resort to theory: "The moral is to the physical as three to one." To prevail as commander, you must convince your troops that it is necessary, that they can and will find a way through, and that they want to do just that. For example, the Italians didn't believe and they left the war (oversimplifying a bit). It is very hard for an armchair historian to imagine what could have driven these men to continue under such circumstances. Certainly each had a feeling of obligation to support the group and a hope that luck would see them through.

I do recommend Farley Mowat's books for insight on the Canadian experience.

I am in full agreement that the contribution was significant, but I'm afraid to say that many in the US have a somewhat underappreciating position as regards other nations. Saying that the extent of the Canadian involvement is often overlooked by those outside of Canada, which it is, in no way diminishes the value of that involvement. How many Americans (or even Brits) have even heard of Vimy Ridge, let alone can speak with any knowledge of it? Does acknowledging that ignorance in any way detract from the event?

As I Canadian thanks for posting this up -- I've never heard of Ortana previously. Other than Vimy (and Passchedaele/Dieppe) specific battles have dropped from our lexicon. ie: we celebrate D-day but not Juno Beach to the extend that Omaha/Utah (and I guess Gold/Sword) are. We hear about the liberation of the Holland but not the Battle of the Scheldt.

If I might put in a point here from the southern cousin's POV (that is to say, USA), as a student of warfare in general and WW II in particular, it is simply astounding how many reference materials soft-pedal the Canadian effort. Not out of malice, certainly, or disrespect, but simply through lumping them in with the Commonwealth forces. It takes specialized study (and particularly materials specifically examining Commonwealth forces) to eke out much about the Canadian effort. Yes, it was vast (particularly for the population size of Canada!). Yes, it was important (particularly for the manpower needs of the Commonwealth forces). Yes, it was persistent (there from the beginning). All these things are true. And yes, Canadian units showed their stuff in every engagement; tactically, they've a bit of a reputation for being more stoutly nutty than US units (US units being consistently only nutty). But if you check US literature, videos, and other media, particularly the 'popular' stuff, you find darned little mention of the Canadians at all...they're just a different Brit shoulder patch, so to speak.

And I am certain that there are ethnicities in the former Soviet Union that have even more vociferous and justified complaints about their nigh-total lack of representation in the histories of 'The Great Patriotic War!'

Oh, and re: Ortona and the Chieftain's article: It would be hard to construct a less useful, and more dangerous, place for tank operations. (Although this was achieved at Casino Town, I believe.)

Please excuse any over reaction, we Canadians don't really "trumpet" our successes or accomplishments. How can we expect others to know details of our involvement with history when we barely teach them to our own students? Military traditions of Canada go way back, and a reputation of ferocity and salty language has been well earned. lol

Please excuse any over reaction, we Canadians don't really "trumpet" our successes or accomplishments. How can we expect others to know details of our involvement with history when we barely teach them to our own students? Military traditions of Canada go way back, and a reputation of ferocity and salty language has been well earned. lol

Indeed ...

You guys need to write-up and export some of those great histories ...

And do some advertising - even if it is out of your national character ...